Coffee and the environment

Coffee and the environment / Research on coffee growing

New coffee species from Madagascar

Earlier this year, the news of the “discovery” of a caffeine-free species of coffee from the Cameroon created a bit of a stir. This species was actually first collected in 1983, but remained unstudied and not described to science until 2008 [1], at which point it made headlines when it made a 2009 top ten list of new species. I wrote about it here.

Similiarly, the Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew just announced some recent achievements, among which was the “discovery” of new species in the genus Coffea from Madagascar. Again, these species were not necessarily just discovered but were described in a paper published in 2008[2].  Coffea ambongenis, for example, was first collected in 1841 but not described, was rediscovered in 1999, and is now published as a new species.

There are 103 described species of Coffea in the world, and the Madagascar species are part of the Coffea subgenus Baracoffea, which now stands at 9 species. In addition to species in this subgenus being deciduous rather than evergreen like all other coffee species, some have unusual morphological characteristics. Here is a very brief run-down.

  • C. ambongensis and C. boinensi: Very large fruit, in C. ambongensis often larger than 2.5 cm long. C. boinensi was first collected in 1994.
  • C. bissetiae: Underside of leaves and fruit hairy.
  • C. labatii and C. pterocarpa: Unusual winged fruit. C. labatii, first collected in 1992, has 12 to 18 “wings” per fruit. C. pterocarpa (first collected in 1954) has 16 to 20 wings, and is pictured at right in a photo by Aaron Davis from Kew; an informative accompanying article is here. One theory as to the function of the wings is that it helps the fruit float, and these species occur in regularly-flooded karst limestone habitats.
  • C. namorokensis: First collected in 2000, but not identified as a new species. Also has hairy fruit and leaves.

None of the new species have been tried as a beverage, and it is unlikely they will ever be commercialized.  All are rare: near-threatened to critically endangered, and Madagascar forests are among the most exploited and threatened in the world today.

[1] Stoffelen, P., M. Noirot, E. Couturon & F. Anthony. 2008. A new caffeine-free coffee from Cameroon. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 158: 67-72.

[2] Davis, A. P, & F. Rakotonasolo. 2008. A taxonomic revision of the baracoffea alliance: nine remarkable Coffea species from western Madagascar.
Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 158 (3), 355-390 DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.2008.00936.x

Coffee and the environment / Organic coffee

EPA bans pesticide carbofuran on coffee imports

In May, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its decision to ban any residue of the pesticide carbofuran on food. The rule becomes effective December 31, 2009.

Carbofuran (sold under the name Furadan) causes neurological damage in humans, is extremely deadly to birds and fish, and is highly toxic through ingestion and inhalation. It is used on numerous crops, including coffee. It tends to be used on various types of mealy bugs that infest the roots of coffee plants, coffee root nematodes, and on the coffee leaf miner (Leucoptera coffeella). Coffee leaf miners have natural enemies in Latin America, so carbofuran is used against them mainly in Africa.

Earlier in the process of reviewing carbofuran uses, the EPA rules allowed the importation of rice, coffee, bananas, and sugarcane with carbofuran residues. This final decision reverses that, and countries exporting coffee into the U.S. must stop using carbofuran on their crops. While little pesticide residue remains on green or roasted coffee, the direct threats to coffee workers, wildlife, and the millions of migratory and resident birds from the application of carbofuran to coffee make its use dangerous.

The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for enforcing EPA regulations on food imports. Carbofuran residue on food has been banned in the EU for some time, so testing protocols are established. Exporting countries, and coffee exporters and importers, often engage testing and certification labs to insure there are no violations that could lead to rejected shipments or, worse, a ban on imports.

FMC Corporation, the Pennsylvania-based company that manufactures Furadan, recently announced that they are challenging the EPA’s decision on some technical and administrative grounds. They have contended that the chemical is safe, despite well-documented impacts on birds, lions, hippos, other wildlife, and humans. Reports are still surfacing about illegal use of Furadan by poachers to kill vultures (which attract attention to illegal kills) and small birds which are then sold for human consumption.

Improper pesticide usage (whether unwitting or purposeful), export of domestically banned pesticides to other countries, and the fact that we are just beginning to understand the dangers of cumulative and synergistic effects of multiple pesticides in the environment to wildlife and humans, all argue for support of non-chemical-based pest management. And that includes growing coffee under diverse shade with its biodiversity-based pest control benefits.

Update: In 2010, courts ruled the EPA had to once again establish residue tolerances for imported foods, including coffee.

Coffee and the environment / Research on coffee growing

The water footprint of coffee

The water footprint of coffee and tea consumption in the Netherlands. 2007. Chapagain, A.K., and A. Y. Hoekstra. Ecological Economics 64:109-118.

This is not a newly published paper, but I found it well worth summarizing here.

“Footprint” evaluations — ecological, carbon, or water — determine the amount of a resource needed to produce a unit of a good. This paper calculated the water footprints per ton and per cup of tea and coffee, as well as “virtual” water imports into the Netherlands for each beverage. I’ll only summarize the water footprint of coffee here, but the paper can be downloaded from the publications list at the Water Footprint Network.

The authors measured coffee crop water requirements in different parts of the world. Some regions must irrigate (e.g., Brazil) while others rely on rainfall. Water used in processing, which also varies by region, was then factored in. Much of the world’s coffee (especially arabica) is wet processed, requiring a water source such as a river or groundwater to ferment and wash the coffee prior to drying the beans.

The calculations also took into account the shrinking weight of the product throughout processing — e.g., fresh cherries to pulped cherries to hulled beans, etc.– in order to keep the metric (cubic meters of water per ton of coffee) consistent.

Because of all the variability, from annual crop water requirements (they used FAO estimates) to the number of grams of ground or instant coffee used to make a weak or strong cup, this whole operation is somewhat of an inexact science. However, the authors appeared meticulous in their choices and inclusiveness, and the results seem to at least give us a relative picture between regions and methods, if not numbers that are actually well in the ballpark.

As it turns out, there was little difference whether coffee was wet or dry processed. The water used in wet processing made up only 0.34% of water used to grow the coffee. The summary tables provided figures for wet processing only.

The main results summarized the cubic meters of water used per ton of coffee (for each step from fresh cherry to roasted) for 25 countries.  The two countries with the highest totals were both robusta-producing nations: Togo (49341 m3/ton) and Ghana (47554). In fact, six of the top ten countries grew robusta either exclusively or in addition to arabica. The highest arabica-only country was Panama at 37660 m3/ton.

The average (weighted for world production) “virtual water content” was calculated at 20987 m3/ton. Lowest countries were Vietnam at 6054 and the U.S. (Hawaii and Puerto Rico, 9061). Other countries that grow primarily arabica which were ranked below-average were Ethiopia, Guatemala, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Bolivia, and Colombia.

Finally, the authors calculated that the “average” cup of coffee required around 140 liters of water; several variations were provided. The authors also estimated that if the price of coffee included the economic value of rainwater, it would increase about 20 cents per kilo. This cost increase does not include surface or groundwater used for processing or irrigation water, nor any environmental costs due to erosion or water pollution.

Coffee flotation in Chiriqui, Panama; photo by Darrin O’Brien, used with permission.

Chapagain, A., & Hoekstra, A. (2007). The water footprint of coffee and tea consumption in the Netherlands Ecological Economics, 64 (1), 109-118 DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.022

Coffee and the environment / Research on coffee growing

Climate change and coffee pests

Jaramillo, J., A. Chabi-Olaye, C. Kamonjo, A. Jaramillo, F. E. Vega, H.-M. Poehling, and C. Borgemeister 2009. Thermal tolerance of the coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei: Predictions of climate change impact on a tropical insect pest. PLoS ONE 4(8): e6487. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006487.

A paper just published in the journal PLoS ONE explores the impact of climate change on the life history and distribution of the world’s worst coffee pest, a minute beetle called the coffee berry borer (CBB), Hypothenemus hampei.

The study modeled potential changes in mortality, number of generations per year, and developmental rate, among other traits, under eight different temperature regimes. The model indicated that CBB successfully develop at 20-30°C, and the intrinsic rate of increase (rate at which a CBB population increases in size) is highest, and the population doubling time lowest, at about 25-26°C (around 77°F).

As mean seasonal temperatures in coffee-growing countries move toward the optimum development temperatures for CBB, these areas become more vulnerable to increasing pest pressure from CBB. This could be especially problematic in Colombia, where multiple flowering of coffee plants means nearly year-round availability of coffee cherries.

The predicted optimal temperature for CBB increase is higher than that which is best for arabica coffee, which prefers a temperature range of 18-21°C (above which yields are reduced), while robusta coffee thrives at temperatures several degrees higher. Climate change is already predicted to reduce area suitable for coffee production. This is probably an even more pressing threat to coffee than changing pest dynamics.

As far as mitigation of the effects of higher temperatures on CBB and coffee production in general, the authors state:

A proven strategy to alleviate the potentially negative effects of climate, especially warmer temperatures, on coffee production is the introduction of shade trees in coffee plantations.

They point out that shade trees can lower temperatures around coffee by up to 4°C at low altitudes (<700 m) and 2°C higher up (>1100 m), that shaded farms harbor more CBB enemies which can provide bio-control of these pests, and that coffee cherry weight and quality is higher when grown under shade, thus offsetting lower yields.

A number of the authors are associated with the International Center of Insect Physiology and Ecology.

Update, March 2011: James Hoffman did an overview of the CBB with some links to climate change research.
Update, September 2011: Further follow-up research by the authors is summarized here.

Photo of a female CBB entering an unripe coffee cherry, part of Figure 1 from the PLoS paper, photo by Gonzalo Hoyos of CENICAFE. Don’t discount small enemies.

Jaramillo, J., Chabi-Olaye, A., Kamonjo, C., Jaramillo, A., Vega, F., Poehling, H., & Borgemeister, C. (2009). Thermal Tolerance of the Coffee Berry Borer Hypothenemus hampei: Predictions of Climate Change Impact on a Tropical Insect Pest PLoS ONE, 4 (8) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006487

Climate change / Coffee and the environment

Carbon credits with coffee: a how-to guide

Last spring I posted about a lecture I attended at the SCAA conference on coffee and climate change. I focused on the climate module that Rainforest Alliance is adding to its certification. Part of this initiative was to create a methodology for measuring and verifying carbon stored on coffee farms and a mechanism for producers to receive payments for carbon credits.

Rainforest Alliance partnered with the International Finance Corporation (IFC), part of the World Bank Group; ECOM Agroindustrial Corp., the world’s third largest coffee trading company; and coffee farmers in Mexico and Nicaragua to develop and test these methodologies. They produced a document, “Guidance on coffee carbon project development using the simplified agroforestry methodology.”

The guide is in six parts, and I’ll paraphrase the introduction to outline what each is about:

  1. A general overview of forest and agroforest carbon projects to help the reader understand what a ”project” is and what it is not; what is needed to set a project apart from business as usual practice; and why such projects are important and have value.
  2. Preparation and design of a project, requirements for a Project Design Document which identifies and explains each of the project’s key activities, elements, and important data.
  3. Description of risks to carbon projects’ success and how to assess and lower or manage them.
  4. Explains the processes of independent third party evaluation.
  5. An overview of the financial and contractual arrangements associated with carbon projects.
  6. Glossary and resources.

It’s a pretty straight-forward and non-technical document, and if you are interested I encourage you to download it and give it a look. One of my first thoughts was that this is still well out of the realm of many very small producers who might be only marginally literate. Like all certification schemes, we (the consuming “North”) are imposing a lot of rules and erecting a lot of barriers on farmers to in essence prove they are managing their land in an environmentally-responsible manner so that they might be rewarded for it. I don’t think the average Juan Valdez is going to sit down by the light of his wood-burning stove with this guide and be on his way to selling carbon credits. It will require support and partnership, which in turn requires funding, and ultimately boils down to the need for consumers to be willing to pay more for a sustainably-grown cup of coffee. Which I’ve been saying all along.

Photo by DelosJ under a Creative Commons License.

Certifications / Climate change / Coffee and the environment / Rainforest Alliance

Coffee, climate change, and Rainforest Alliance

At the Specialty Coffee Association of America expo, we attended a lecture on climate change and coffee. Several speakers discussed this topic, but I’ll focus on the climate module that Rainforest Alliance is adding to its certification. This was announced at last year’s SCAA meeting (my post here), and RA’s Jeff Hayward provided more details on the program.

Coffee, especially shade coffee, is a global crop that has a relatively lower impact on greenhouse gas emissions and a more positive impact on carbon sequestration than many other crops.There is potential for shade coffee farms to contribute to the mitigation of climate change and generate income for farmers at the same time; I have a previous post that outlines the basics.

Rainforest Alliance has developed around 100 different criteria used to certify farms. A small number are considered required critical standards. Beyond that, certification is awarded once a particular percentage of the remaining criteria are met. RA is evaluating which criteria represent practices that improve carbon storage and mitigate climate change. If those particular criteria are among those that are met by a farm, they would be eligible to receive a ”Rainforest Alliance Plus” or "Climate Friendly" certification. RA is currently testing some assumptions and developing these criteria in Guatemala.

This will help buyers choose coffee that is climate friendly, but depending on what consumers are willing to pay won’t necessarily generate additional income for producers. A second part of RA’s climate program is to work to develop a mechanism for producers to receive payments for carbon credits within existing carbon markets. Since these must be beyond ”business as usual,” existing shade coffee farms might not be able to greatly increase their amount of carbon sequestration. But this holds promise for farms that are growing sun coffee or shade monoculture as they can gain credits for planting shade trees or for reforestation — the more the better. It could also help discourage the conversion of coffee to pasture or less eco-friendly crops. RA is working on pilot carbon credit projects now in Mexico and Nicaragua.

Climate change / Coffee and the environment / Coffee news and miscellany

Green Mountain climate change grant finalists

Last month, Green Mountain Coffee Roasters announced a request for proposals for four $200,000 grants to organizations working on climate change. The grants will be awarded in each of four categories: transportation-related emissions, threats to coffee-growing communities, building political will, and empowering individual action.

They’ve just announced the finalists in each category. While I’m disappointed that a proposal by the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center (developers of the Bird-Friendly shade coffee criteria) didn’t make the cut, I see that another great organization did. The American Bird Conservancy is one of five finalists in the Threats to Coffee Growing Communities category. Here is a summary of their proposal:

[We] will determine the additional carbon load held by shade coffee plantations over sun coffee plantations, and calculate the income differential per acre for coffee production for shade and sun  growers. We will then test a system to stream carbon offsets credit funding incentives to shade growers to compensate for the difference in income between the two systems. If it can be shown that shade coffee can be economically beneficial due to its additional carbon load (from both a sale of credits and/or consumer interest), then this project stands to benefit farmers across millions of acres of the Andes and could be the land management driver that saves the Cerulean Warbler the fastest declining songbird in North America on its wintering grounds. The project will have multiple additional benefits for famers and local communities in terms of the protection of watersheds and traditional farming techniques which are currently threatened by conversion to sun coffee.

ABC does excellent bird conservation work at home and internationally, and does so very cost-efficiently. They are very familiar with Latin American shade coffee issues. I’ve written about their Cerulean Warbler campaign, which has included working with Colombian partners and shade coffee farmers to preserve wintering habitat for this declining songbird. ABC has continued to work on reforestation projects in South America which includes shade coffee farms. I’ve also written about the potential for coffee farms to provide carbon sequestration services, and think the ABC proposal is very worthy of support.

For the next week, the public can vote for and comment on proposals at JustMeans.

Climate change / Coffee and the environment / Keurig Green Mountain / Retail and specialty roasters

Green Mountain to fund climate change projects

Green Mountain Coffee Roasters will award four grants of $200,000 each to organizations with ideas to combat climate change in four core areas: transportation-related emissions (including GMCR’s product shipping), threats to coffee-growing communities (enormous, given that climate change is already pushing coffee production to higher altitudes), building political will, and empowering individual action. Grant recipients will also be required to meet with GMCR twice a year to help the company work on reducing and mitigating its own carbon footprint.

The last two grant categories seem a little amorphous, but I’m quite enthusiastic about the potential for development of programs that can help farmers adjust to climate change (for those that can; the solution for many farmers may actually be to transition to other crops, unfortunately).

This grant project is part of a larger effort by GMCR to focus on climate change through changing business practices and raising awareness (you can read their statement on climate change here).

Spending $800,000 in the current economic crisis by a company that sells what is essentially a “luxury” item is, I think, a pretty strong statement of commitment to environmental responsibility. Kudos to GMCR.

 

Coffee and the environment

Pesticide resistance in coffee berry borers

The coffee berry borer, or broca (Hypothenemus hampei) is the most serious insect pest of coffee. Originally native to Africa, it has been unintentionally introduced to just about every coffee-producing nation in the world. Female beetles lay 30-50 eggs inside a coffee cherry, which hatch and develop inside. Thus, they damage the cherry and cause defects or the cherry drops off the tree and causes a loss. Economic impact can be substantial.

Nearly the entire life cycle of this very tiny beetle takes place inside the coffee ripening coffee cherry. For that reason, pesticides can be largely ineffective against it. Nonetheless, the neurotoxic organochlorine insecticide endosulfan is widely used in coffee farms to try to fight the borers. Not only is this not very effective, it is bad for the environment, and the life history of these beetles enables them to rapidly develop resistance to endosulfan.

The dangers of endosulfan
Endosulfan is considered highly toxic, and it has been banned in many countries, including the entire European Union. In the U.S., the Fish and Wildlife Service recommended it be banned in 2002, and a number of science and environmental groups continue to pressure the EPA to ban this pesticide (updates on U.S. ban and worldwide phase-out).

Many cases of poisoning of coffee workers by endosulfan in Colombia resulted in a ban in that country in 2001. Endosulfan, to be even marginally effective, requires rather intensive spraying because of the relatively low probability of making contact with borer beetles that are actually outside of a coffee cherry and the high concentration needed for vapor to cause mortality of any beetles that have penetrated the skin of a coffee cherry.

Even when pesticides are banned in developed nations, they may continue to be used for many years in developing countries, such as coffee growing nations. Endosulfan is toxic to insects and animals (including humans) and can persist in the environment. Pesticides are frequently applied in these countries without proper safety precautions. At a recent coffee conference, Ernest Carmen of Costa Rica’s Cafe Cristina said that endosulfan is regulated and considered toxic in Costa Rica, but that it is freely available and indiscriminately applied, even though it is not that effective against broca.

What makes coffee berry borers so able to develop resistance to endosulfan?
Coffee berry borers have an interesting life history that enables them to readily develop pesticide resistance. Most borers are females (13 to each male). All males are flightless, and mate with their sisters because they never leave the cherry in which they are born. This results in genetic inbreeding. When the mutation for endosulfan resistance pops up, it can rapidly spread through a population because of this inbreeding [1,2]. This has already occurred on the island of New Caledonia [3], and would be devastating if (or when) it happens in a mainland coffee producing region.

Alternate solution: promote shade coffee and habitat preservation to control pests!
This study found ground-foraging ants are more common and eat more coffee berry borers in fallen coffee cherries in shade coffee than on sun coffee farms. This one found that coffee farms that had little shade also had fewer beetle species — except they had a much higher abundance of coffee berry borers. And this study showed that at coffee farms which were close to natural habitat patches, migratory birds preyed upon coffee berry borers, enough to bestow a healthy economic benefit to farmers.

New biocontrol methods, especially the role of natural predators associated with shade, is an area that is and will continue to draw more research attention.

[1] Functional haplodiploidy: a mechanism for the spread of insecticide resistance in an important international insect pest. 1995. Brun, L. O., J. Stuart, V. Gaudichon, K. Aronstein, and R. H. Ffrench-Constant. PNAS 92:9861-9865.

[2] Genetic sleuths explain insects’ resistance – Hypothenemus hampei, or coffee berry borer, resistant to pesticide endosulfan due to their genetic makeup and their practice of breeding with siblings. 1995. Science News.

[3] Endosulfan resistance in Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in New Caledonia. 1989. Brun, L.O., Marcillaud, C., Gaudichon, V. and Suckling, D.M.Jrl. Econ. Entomol. 82:1311-1316.

Coffee berry borer beetle by Eric Erbe, USDA Agricultural Research Service.

Certifications / Climate change / Coffee and the environment / Rainforest Alliance

Rainforest Alliance introduces carbon module

In my post “Coffee farms and carbon sequestration,” I discussed the potential of carbon credits in helping coffee farmers earn extra income, and provided some statistics and references on carbon sequestration on coffee farms in and other tropical agroforestry systems.

As it turns out, Rainforest Alliance (RA) will be adding a carbon module to their certification for farms (coffee, and presumably other crops they certify). This announcement was first made in May at their Sustainable Coffee Breakfast at the SCAA annual conference in Minneapolis. The details are not final, but here is what RA’s Gretchen Ruethling explained to me regarding RA’s past experience and future plans:

We are working with other organizations to help farmers get paid for providing environmental services such as storing carbon and protecting watersheds and biodiversity. The Rainforest Alliance is a registered verifier for leading carbon offset programs including the Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance and the Chicago Climate Exchange. We have verified carbon offsets on coffee farms through projects organized by Plan Vivo in Mexico. We verified an ambitious project in Aceh, Indonesia developed by Fauna & Flora International that will reduce deforestation on 750,000 hectares of rainforest. We verified a reforestation project in the highly endangered Atlantic Forest of Brazil as a carbon offset for Jacques Vabre, a coffee brand in France. (That project is managed by a coalition of Brazilian NGOs and led by the Nature Conservancy.)

We are working to offer more incentives to coffee farmers to encourage them to plant more trees. One exciting idea is developing a system that would allow coffee companies to buy carbon from farmers along with their coffee beans — through the existing supply chains. Companies could pay a small carbon premium. In order for this to work, we need a simple, low-cost yet rigorous and highly credible method to estimate the carbon on a coffee farm and verify that it remains year after year. This could be done by auditing the carbon as part of the annual farm inspection by members of the Sustainable Agriculture Network.

I’m thrilled RA is pursuing this concept — it’s a win-win-win situation for the farmer, biodiversity, and the planet.

Coffee and the environment

International Day for Biological Diversity

Today is International Day for Biological Diversity and the theme for this year is Biodiversity and Agriculture. The sponsor is the Convention on Biological Diversity, an international treaty initiated at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.

This year’s theme highlights the importance of sustainable agriculture to the preservation of biodiversity. While agriculture contributes significantly to conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, it has also been a major driver of biodiversity loss primarily through land-use conversion, which is expected to remain the largest cause of biodiversity loss beyond 2010 to at least 2050. Agriculture also contributes to dwindling biodiversity through intensification of agricultural production systems, excessive chemical and water use, nutrient loading, and pollution — all issues relevant to technified sun coffee production.

The Santa Marta Sabrewing (Campylopterus phainopeplus) is an endangered hummingbird that is only found in the Santa Marta mountains of northeast Colombia. In the dry season, it is often found in shade coffee plantations, but the number of shade farms is decreasing, and along with them, birds and other wildlife that depend on them.

This species is included in the recently released 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the authoritative global database of the world’s most vulnerable species. You can help by making a donation to support the IUCN’s conservation efforts, or the work of one of its partners, BirdLife International.

And, as always, drink sustainably-grown coffee.

Coffee and the environment / Corporate coffee

Sara Lee’s "sustainable" coffee

Another one of the Big Four multinational roasters is jumping on the green bandwagon. Sara Lee’s foodservice division is introducing its “Good Origin” line in the U.S. This line of six coffees will UTZ Certified (formerly Utz Kapeh). Sara Lee stated:

“Sustainability is the goal of protecting, preserving and improving the social, economic and environmental states of coffee producing communities. … We’re partnering with UTZ CERTIFIED coffee, the most credible and comprehensive certification program that supports these sustainable goals.”

With this move, Sara Lee says it is showing its commitment to “sustainable quality” by doubling its purchase of sustainable certified coffee to 20,000 tons in 2008.

This represents just a tiny fraction of Sara Lee’s coffee purchases
According to the International Coffee Organization, world production for the years 2002-2006 averaged right around 7 million metric tons per year. Not all is exported from producing countries; the export figure is about 5.3 million metric tons. Although exact market share is considered a “trade secret” and hard to come by, Oxfam indicated that Sara Lee buys about 10% of the coffee on the world market. Even using the lower 5.3 million ton figure, the 20,000 tons of certified coffee Sara Lee plans on purchasing will be less than 4% of their total annual procurement.

The statement that UTZ is the most credible and comprehensive certification program is just false.
The most comprehensive and credible program for “protecting, preserving and improving” the environment is the Smithsonian Bird-Friendly certification, which requires organic certification and has other stringent criteria. I wrote an entire post describing how the UTZ environmental criteria are the weakest of all the major certifications.

The most credible and comprehensive certification program aimed at improving social and economic conditions is Fair Trade. The UTZ certification program has no price minimums or guarantees for producers; it has been criticized as “Fair Trade lite” precisely because big buyers are using it as a cheaper way to tap into the ethical consumer market.

On the bright side
This is not to say UTZ certification isn’t worthwhile. The program emphasizes recordkeeping and traceability. Although the Good Origin blends have indeterminate names like Terrenos Gemelos and Tres Joyas, consumers will be able to input a source code from the front of a coffee bag and go to the Good Origin web site to identify the origin of the coffee. Sort of. You’ll get sent to the one of the UTZ producers pages, which provide general information but not many specifics (especially on growing conditions) for the cooperative or farm.

Nonetheless, that consumers can get even this much information about coffee origins from one of the Big Four is notable. As we learned some time ago, these corporations don’t actually know themselves where all their coffee comes from! Because of the huge volumes of coffee they purchase, they have networks of buyers and middlemen; traceability is a nightmare.

Do I prefer that the Big Four buy at least some coffee from some sort of “sustainable” source? Yes. But I do not believe in supporting corporations that do far more harm than good. It’s like giving a free pass to a drug dealer because he built a health clinic in his hometown, while pushing dope in front of the local school. And why should I reward a company for making a marginal effort at doing what it should be doing, being an ethical, responsible corporate citizen?

As long as consumers demand and continue to buy cheap, mass produced coffee, the Big Four will continue to obtain it from whomever they can. They’ll do the least expensive thing they can — such as buying a tiny fraction of their coffee under a certification scheme that costs them the least amount of money and effort — in order not to lose the consumers that have tried to wake up and smell the evils of unsustainable coffee. Don’t be fooled.

Climate change / Coffee and the environment

Coffee farms and carbon sequestration

In my post, “Why certifying shade coffee is so complex,” I ended with a comment regarding the upside-down nature of shade (or organic) certification. That is, the burden of certification costs are on the producers who are doing the right thing, rather than on the producers who are damaging the environment. Small producers, who are more likely to preserve forests and grow coffee under diverse shade (both of which enhance biodiversity) and are less likely to use chemicals, are the least able to afford certification.

I’ve been ruminating about this ever since, and wondered if some sort of “cap and trade” system might be helpful. What I had in mind were “credits” for forest or habitat preservation and enhancement small eco-friendly farms could “sell” to naughty sun coffee growers. This was inspired by a similar system: carbon credits. So while I let this idea simmer, it’s worthwhile to briefly discuss the role of carbon credits themselves, and their potential to generate income for farmers practicing sustainable agriculture, including shade coffee.

Quick primer on terrestrial carbon sequestration
Trees (and other plants) sequester carbon by removing it from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and incorporating into their tissues. Existing forests are carbon sinks (or ”carbon storage units”) and contain over half of the terrestrial carbon in the world. Carbon remains stored in plant tissues until released, in this case most often by burning and decomposition.  Agroforestry systems, including shade coffee farms, that preserve forest are therefore acting as carbon sinks.

Reforestation also contributes to the sequestration of carbon, although the rate in which carbon is taken up and stored by plants varies among species, as well as where they are grown and if and how they are managed. This means that sun coffee farms converted to shade in which the appropriate tree species are planted and managed have the potential to effectively sequester carbon.

Carbon is also stored in leaf litter and other organic matter in the soil. Sustainable coffee agrosystems frequently rely on fallen leaves from their shade trees as well as the application of coffee skins and other organic matter for soil moisture retention and fertilization, providing another means in which these farms can contribute to carbon sequestration.

How much carbon can coffee farms store?
Although measuring carbon storage is difficult due to the multiple variables involved (even plots in the same region with similar tree species composition can vary in their storage capacity depending on microclimate, soil types, etc.), recent research has revealed some encouraging facts. A few examples:

  • In the tropics, potential carbon sequestration rates for smallholder, sustainable agroforestry systems range from 1.5 to 3.5 megagrams (tonnes) per hectare per year, or 2.1 billion megagrams annually worldwide.
  • It has been estimated that each hectare of sustainable agroforestry in the tropics could potentially offset 5 to 20 ha of deforestation.
  • Models have estimated a 5-year-old coffee farm shaded with two common Latin American tree species (Erythrina poeppigiana and Cordia alliodora) could sequester 5.3 megagrams per hectare.
  • Soil carbon stocks in shade coffee were 60% of that expected in primary forest in Sumatra, versus 45% for sun coffee.
  • In El Salvador, carbon sequestration values for various types of shade coffee management were estimated (in tons per ha per year): 174 for rustic shade to 77 for shade monoculture.
  • A study of carbon stocks in Costa Rican coffee farms calculated aerial (above ground) carbon stocks ranging from 11 megagrams per ha for simple shade (one heavily pruned shade species) to nearly 32 for diverse shade.
  • Using these figures, a farmer with 10 ha in diversified shade coffee could receive a one-time $3000 payment (based on previously carbon transactions for the country), as well as a reduction in expenses from chemical inputs and have timber and fruit for additional income. The payment is over three times greater than would be obtained for the carbon stocks in simple shade coffee systems.

The non-profit TechnoServe is exploring the use of carbon credit trading for promoting sustainable agroforestry, using a Guatemalan coffee cooperative (more here). Small holders in Oaxaca and Chiapas, Mexico, are gaining access to carbon credit funds to pay for sustainable agroforestry there, where a great deal of coffee is grown (more here).

It appears sustainable coffee agroforestry can play a role in helping to mitigate global climate change through carbon sequestration, and in the process also provide additional income and further incentive to growing shade coffee. I have a feeling we’ll be hearing much more about this in the future.

More reading, including sources for the figures above:

  • Smallholder agroforestry projects: Potential for carbon sequestration and poverty alleviation. O. J. Cacho, G. R. Marshall, and M. Milne. 2003.  ESA Working Paper No. 03-06. Agricultural and Development Economics Division, The Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations.
  • Carbon sequestration in tropical and temperate agroforestry systems: a review with examples from Costa Rica and southern Canada. M. Oelbermann, R. P. Voroney, and A. M. Gordon. 2004. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 104: 359-377.
  • Carbon sequestration: An underexploited environmental benefit of agroforestry systems. F. Montagnini and P. K. R. Nair. 2004. Agroforestry Systems 61:281-295.
  • Carbon stock assessment for a forest-to-coffee conversion landscape in Sumber-Jaya (Lampung, Indonesia): from allometric equations to land use change analysis. M. van Noordwijk, S. Rahayu, K. Hairiah, Y. C. Wulan, A. Farida, and. B. Verbist. 2002. Science in China (PDF here).
  • Carbon sequestration in coffee agroforestry plantations of Central America. 21st International Conference on Coffee Science, 2006.
  • Sustainability in the coffee sector: exploring opportunities for international cooperation. U.N. Conference on Trade and Development. 2003. (PDF here)
  • Carbon Storage in Coffee Agroecosystems of Southern Costa Rica: Potential Applications for the Clean Development Mechanism. C. Polzot. 2004. M.S. thesis, York University, Toronto.  Includes excellent cited information on the mechanisms of carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems, and Costa Rica’s Payment for Environmental Services programs.

Coffee and the environment / Corporate coffee

Habitat still destroyed for cheap corporate coffee

Nearly a year ago, I wrote a post discussing a World Wildlife Fund report revealing that robusta coffee was being illegally grown in southern Sumatra, with most being purchased by large coffee producers such as Kraft and Nestlè (press release here, full PDF here). That report focused on coffee being grown inside Indonesia’s Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park in Lampung province.

Earlier this week, ABC News carried a report on the plight of wild elephants in Sumatra. The story updated the situation at Bukit Barisan, and reported that only 4 elephants out of 60 still survive there. ABC said:

The national park is a protected forest, but a lot of it has been burned and cleared to grow Robusta coffee beans. These beans are commonly used in Europe and North America to make instant coffee.

Nestlè, which makes Nescafe, buys coffee from the region — 40 percent of it from local traders.

A Nestlè spokesman told ABC News, “It might come — we have no way of  knowing — from illegal sources. Law enforcement is not our task.”

In a follow-up post, I provided and update, in which Nestlè admitted the “difficulty of determining the precise origin” of its coffee. The company promised a year ago to increase the scrutiny of its Indonesian sources to make sure it didn’t buy illegally grown beans and launch an effort to clean up its supply chain.

If Nestlè hasn’t bothered to clean up its act, there’s a good reason: consumers are not penalizing them for their poor behavior. For the first nine months of 2007, since the first reports about the illegal coffee came to light, the Nestlè division that includes Nescafe and other coffees grew 10%, with sales — just in this division — of over US$11 billion.  It’s not just Nestlè, Kraft’s North American beverage division also posted a 5.3% gain in net revenues in the third quarter of 2007.

As long as people buy these coffees, they will continue to be produced, no matter how much habitat and wildlife gets destroyed, or how many growers become impoverished. The large multinational corporations that bring us our dirt cheap coffee are motivated by profits. Do you buy this coffee? What motivates you?

Photo of robusta coffee growing in the sun in southern Sumatra, from Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center.

Coffee and the environment / Corporate coffee

Tim Hortons coffee and the environment

If you are Canadian or live in a U.S. border state, you know Tim Hortons. This coffee and donut/fast food shop completely dominates the carry-out coffee market in Canada, with over 2,700 locations serving around 3 million cups of coffee a day, leaving Starbucks a distant second. Tim Hortons is such a Canadian cultural icon that there is even a store in Kandahar, Afghanistan, serving Canadian troops. There are also 345 stores in the U.S. with a goal of 500 by the end of 2008. Tim Hortons was acquired by Wendy’s International in 1995, but divested and spun it off late in 2006, so Tim Hortons is once again an independent company.

Is Tim Hortons coffee sustainable?

The coffee
The one-sentence summary is this: Tim Hortons does not sell organic coffee, does not sell Fair Trade coffee, and does not disclose the source of its green beans.

On their web site, the company explains, “we decided against buying fair trade coffee” and instead developed a program that works directly with the growers. This program, initiated in 2005, is called the Sustainable Coffee Partnership, and is implemented and managed by the outside organization EDE Consulting, of the Neumann Kaffee Gruppe, Hamburg, Germany. The Partnership will focus on three-year projects. These will provide technical assistance and investment in infrastructure to improve productivity and quality, aid in crop diversification (such as bananas), address the needs of families, and emphasize  “the need to respect and
protect the environment.”

The 2006 Tim Hortons annual report notes that part of the purpose of the Sustainable Coffee Partnership is to “fight against poverty among the people who provide one of the Company’s most important products, and to play a meaningful role in providing for the future supply of quality green coffee.” Therefore, the sites of the projects presumably give an indication of where Tim Hortons sources some its coffee. The first project was in Guatemala, with 750 producers in the communities of Zacapa, Chiquimula and Jutiapa near the Honduran border. Other projects are with 200 producers in Colombia in northern Huila, and in Brazil.

Colombia and Brazil are two of the biggest producers of technified “sun” coffee in the world, but there is no information on how much coffee they source from which countries or how it is grown. Their annual report merely says they have “many suppliers and alternate suppliers for coffee.”


Waste
I found that one couldn’t research Tim Hortons without coming across a lot of material on the ubiquity of disposable Tim Hortons coffee cups. They evidently paper Canada. An article in Macleans quoted a Sierra Club representative who said, “The Tim Hortons cup is easily the No. 1 recognizable item of litter in the country.” One often-cited statistic is that 22% of the litter in the province of Nova Scotia was from Tim Hortons.

Of course, it’s not really the company’s fault if people don’t properly dispose of their, and the company has started some anti-litter campaigns. Nonetheless, Tim Hortons cups contain no recycled material and are not recyclable. The company objected to a proposed tax on non-recyclable cups in Toronto, saying “We’re not a waste-management company. Our product is very price-sensitive.” They have recycling at some of their locations, but I’m unclear on whether it includes the cups. Tim Hortons apparently also offers a discount for bringing your own mug, but this customer (scroll to the bottom) discovered that the employee used a paper cup to fill the customer’s mug. I have had this happen myself on more than one occasion at different establishments, although not Tim Hortons.

Updated addition: Tim Hortons also objects to having its drive-through lanes be subjected to an anti-idling ordinance in Ontario.

Frankly, I’m not impressed with the sustainability efforts of Tim Hortons, or their products.

Photo of store by Thiesen.
Photo of cup in gutter by Kevin Steele.